Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2004(177)ELT133(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj246; 2003(4)WLC418
Singh, C.J.1. Reference has been made to us by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, to consider the following question of law:'Whether the explosive used in the respondents' mines situated outside the premises of their cement factory, for the purpose of excavating limestone as raw material for manufacture of cement, can be considered as inputs (as used in relation to the manufacture of cement) eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944'.2. The facts giving rise to the Reference are as follows:3. The respondent company manufactures cement in it's factory located in Udaipur. One of the raw materials for manufacture of cement is Limestone. The respondent obtained Limestone from mines owned by it. It used duty paid explosives to extract Limestone from the mines. It is not disputed that the Limestone so extracted was exempt from payment of excise duty by reason of exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj648; [2004]137STC326(Raj); 2003(2)WLC398; 2003(1)WLN462
Calla, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order dated 24th Nov., 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of assessment in the matter of Sales Tax has been dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The parties are not at dispute that the remedy under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is there so as to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Officer against the order of assessment.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the remedy of the appeal as aforesaid is coupled with an onerous condition of depositing the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, unless the due amount is deposited, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is also the case of the appellant that he is not in a position even t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1995; RLW2003(2)Raj752; 2003(2)WLC461; 2003(1)WLN467
Joshi, J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision No. 1016 is against the order of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur passed on 26.10.2002 in Sessions Case No. 59/2000. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge had ordered to frame charges against the accused-persons under Section 285, 286, 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Surajpole, Udaipur got a Parcha Bayan recorded on 20.11.1999 that Macsen Laboratories situated at Tekri, Udaipur has caught fire. Before he reached the said laboratory, the fire had already been extinguished. He found the body of a burnt person in a room of the said laboratory. The said labourer was working at Distillator machine. The deceased Naval Ram Gameti and Lalooram had put the Toluene oil in the machine and there were toluene fumes which are inflammable. The labourer went inside the room to make the switch off of the machine and died inside the room. As per site report,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(161)ELT94(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 respectively of the Schedule appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. According to the respondent-revenue, the assessee has incorrectly availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,37,523/- under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period September, 1999 to January, 2000. Thus, by the impugned show cause notice dated 18-2-2000 (Annexure 4), the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the amount recovered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the amount of Rs. 20,941/- be not appropriated in the Government account and further the interest and the amount so determined under Rule 57-I(1) should not be recovered under Rule 57-I(3) of the Rules. The petitioner has also been called upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon him under Rule 173-Q(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj993; 2002(3)WLC555
Rathore, J. 1. For conducting the elections of Gram Panchayat, State of Rajaslhan has issued a notification dated 11th January, 2000 and in pursuance of the notification dated 11th January, 2000, the election of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada was held on 31.1.20,00.2. The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jatwada on 31.1.2000 itself.3. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, Jatwara Panchayat Circle for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jatwara. At the time of submission of nomination paper, nobody has objected his candidature and the petitioner has contested the election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada and was duly declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalwada as the petitioner got the highest votes, The certificate to this effect was also issued on 31 st January, 2000 by the Election Office.4. The defeated candidate Shri Ladu Ram-respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]258ITR548(Raj); 2002(3)WLN553; 2002(3)WLN553
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated July 27, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, to grant registration to the applicant-society under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. This appeal has been admitted by the order of this court dated July 24, 2001, on the following substantial question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that on the proper construction of aims and objects of the assessee-association as disclosed in its constitution fall within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act so as to entitle the assessee-society to registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. The respondent-assessee is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, in the name of 'Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj203
Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur directing the Commissioner of income-tax, Jodhpur to grant registration to the applicant society under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. This appeal has been admitted by the order of this court dated 24.7.2001 on the following substantial question of law :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that on the proper construction of aims and objects of the assessee association as disclosed in its Constitution fall within the purview of Section 2(15) of the income Tax Act so as to entitle the assessee society to registration under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act?'3. The respondent assessee is a society registered under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 in the name of 'Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society, Jodhpur'. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR988]; RLW2003(1)Raj246; 2002(3)WLN61; 2002(3)WLN61
Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition has been registered on a letter of convict Om Prakash Resident of village Kherampura Police Station Adampur District-Hissar (Haryana). He was arrested in September, 1995. He was tried on the charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by judgment dated 29.1.1999 convicted him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. He has undergone a sentence of about six years. He submitted an application before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner for consideration of his case by Advisory Committee for release on parole. The District Magistrate obtained the police report from Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Hissar. The Superintendent of Police has sent an adverse report stating that if he is released, tension may crop up in the village. The Sub-Divisional Officer has verified that the house of the applicant is required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(142)ELT289(Raj); 2003(1)WLN332
ORDERN.N. Mathur, JJ. - 1. This reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is at the instance of the department seeking reference of the following question of law arising from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 6-12-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)] :- 'Whether the explosive used for blasting of mines for obtaining ores and not in the manufacture of Zinc, are eligible for exemption under Notification No.191/87, dated 4-8-1987?'2. The respondent Hindustan Zinc Ltd. is a public undertaking. The Company mines Zinc and Lead ore from its own mines at Rajpura, Maton and Zawar. The Company was granted L-6 licence to obtain goods falling under Chapters 28, 29, 36 and 38 without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of Zinc and Lead concentrate in terms of Notification No. 191/87, dated 4-8-1987. The said notification reads as follows :-'Exemption to goods falling within Chapters 28,29,36 and 38[Add on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN701
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenue at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenue to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of Advisory Board the petit...
Tag this Judgment!